Shoppers mindful of what they put on the table can select just about any package on the grocery store shelf and review the label to quickly find out if it has too many calories or too few vitamins.

But missing from the list of ingredients, nutrient percentages and allergy-related warnings is any mention of whether the food was produced using what’s called “genetically modified organisms,” or GMOs.

The question Proposition 37 poses to voters Tuesday is whether retailers should be required to provide a new cautionary label in certain foods produced through genetic engineering.

“We should have a right to choose what we eat,” argues Karen Archipley, who co-owns a small organic farm north of Escondido called Archi’s Acres.

A GMO warning is an unnecessary and costly overkill that would expose the industry to nuisance lawsuits, counters winemaker Alysha Stehly of Vesper Vineyards in Valley Center.

“It’s going to increase food bills for all consumers. Nobody can afford that in this economy,” she said.

Farmers have long used natural methods to breed better plant varieties that use less water, are more pest-resistant and yield bigger harvests. But over the past decade, seed scientists have been increasingly employing genetic engineering to produce quicker and better results in the laboratory.

These new generations of crops are becoming staples. Among those: corn, alfalfa, cotton, soybeans, sugar beets and zucchini. Nationally, an estimated 88 percent of all corn and 94 percent of all soybeans were grown with genetically altered seeds in 2011. Moreover, GMOs are common in food ingredients, such as high-fructose corn syrup and cotton seed oil. The after-school cookie, half-time potato chip and morning cereal all likely contain GMOs.

Under Proposition 37, retailers would be responsible for ensuring that those foods are labeled “genetically engineered,” “partially produced with genetic engineering” or similar wording.

Proposition 37 does exempt organic food, milk, alcohol, and meat — such as chicken and beef — even if the animal feed included GMOs. “To go” food also would not have to be labeled and restaurants would not have to add warnings to their menus.

If passed, California would become the first state in the nation to require labels for such a variety of foods. Alaska mandates notices for genetically engineered fish. Labeling has been standard in Europe and parts of Asia. The World Health Organization has said there have been no adverse health effects from genetically modified food on the international market.

Given California’s leadership role and size, the outcome could influence how products are labeled — and food is grown — nationally. The importance is underscored by the opposition campaign’s bankroll, which has surpassed $40 million, much of it coming from companies like Monsanto and DuPont with a huge stake in the GMO market as well as in the manufacturing of pesticides. San Diego-based Bumble Bee has contributed $368,000, but did not respond to a request for comment.

Supporters include San Diego-based Jimbo’s …Naturally. “I’m not doing this for our bottom line, but for my kids and kids all over the world. Our consumers demand transparency and the right to know,” said Jim Someck, chief executive officer of Jimbo’s …Naturally in endorsing the measure.